🧵 In regards to Science and Philosophy
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:56:58 UTC No. 16209544
There is a whole lot of confusion about Science vs Philosophy, many people confound the two, and that confusion is here often used to attack the process of inquiry about the natural world that is Science. So let's clear that up:
If you're too lazy to read much:
- Science is thinking and doing "is nature like so, or is it not? Let's go see and verify".
- Philosophy is "what does it mean?"
Science provides us with the facts and knowledge about the world, while philosophy helps us make sense of those facts and understand their place within our broader worldviews.
More elaborately explained, Science and philosophy are both concerned with understanding the world and our place within it, but they approach these questions from different angles and with different tools.
Science focuses on empirically testing hypotheses about the nature of reality. It relies on observation, experimentation, and measurement to explain natural phenomena and develop testable theories. It aims to uncover objective truths about the physical world, and its findings are often expressed in terms of laws, equations, and models.
On the other hand, Philosophy delves deeper into the implications and significance of those findings. It is a rational discipline that uses logic, critical thinking, and conceptual analysis to explore fundamental questions about reality, knowledge, ethics, and human experience. It aims to clarify concepts, expose assumptions, and examine the foundations of our beliefs.
This is CRUCIAL for you to understand: Philosophical inquiry often leads to debates and multiple perspectives rather than definitive answers, and there are often no right answers in Philosophy, just interesting possibilities to digest.
I hope that clears things up for you, and you stop tormenting yourself in that confusion.
There should already be a sticky about this, frankly, because those types of threads keep on repeating themselves everyday.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:05:43 UTC No. 16209551
>>16209544
I see science I like, I'm a platonist
I see science I don't like, I'm a fictionalist
Simple as
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:30:37 UTC No. 16209588
>>16209544
>Science is thinking and doing "is nature like so, or is it not? Let's go see and verify".
Le wild homosexual appears: still no verification whether it's genes and/or upbringing.
> Philosophy is "what does it mean?"
Le wild Schopenhauer appears: ''women remain children all their lives.''
>Science focuses on empirically testing hypotheses about the nature of reality.
Le wild big bang, abiogenesis, string and multiverse hypotheses appear: not empirically verifiable.
>Philosophical inquiry often leads to debates and multiple perspectives rather than definitive answers
>Philosophy delves deeper into the implications and significance of those findings.
Le wild critical theory appears: [insert identity] is suppressed by the patriarchy because we can observe they are suppressed by the patriarchy.
You are a freshman and it shows.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:32:56 UTC No. 16209595
>>16209588
nothing's ever good enough for 4chan
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:37:26 UTC No. 16209599
>>16209595
Because science and philosophy = rigor and OP lacks rigor. Simple as. Adhere to high standards or btfo.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:38:46 UTC No. 16209601
>>16209595
And why should it be?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:00:07 UTC No. 16209625
>>16209599
>OP lacks rigor
Who the fuck are you, a Philosophy PhD dissertation committee?
/sci/ is a punk kiddie board full of science denial and trolling, and someone needs to clear up some basic misunderstandings to minimize the flooding of bullshit threads around here.
Write your own fancy explanation thread if you care, wise one.
Go for it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:04:47 UTC No. 16209634
>>16209625
>science denial
The irony is that the modern world would not exist if the status quo was not met with harsh skepticism
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:05:32 UTC No. 16209635
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:06:49 UTC No. 16209639
>>16209634
not the same as trolling
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:26:35 UTC No. 16209662
>>16209625
>science denial and trolling
>bullshit threads
Do you mean ''skepticism of narratives that serve the powers that be''?
>Write your own fancy explanation thread
One does not need a whole separate thread to clearly see that ''science'' and ''philosophy'' can not be defined as monoliths. Paradoxically: science and philosophy are undefinable when one defines science and philosophy ad ongoing discussions. You, however, seem hell bent on gatekeeping what science is and what it is not which is an anti-scientific attitude.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:31:29 UTC No. 16209666
>>16209639
There was a time (not that long ago relatively speaking) that saying the Earth wasn't the center was thought to be trolling of such a high degree that it warranted torture and death.
What exactly do you mean by trolling?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:33:15 UTC No. 16209743
>>16209662
Definitions matter. Look up the difference between science denial and skepticism. They are not the same.
Also trolling isn't the same as science denial, but they can certainly dance together very closely.
cheers
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:35:17 UTC No. 16209749
>>16209666
>What exactly do you mean by trolling?
Trolling is an attempt to emotionally disrupt a community of people that hold particular beliefs for the sake of one's mild sadism.
It's an affront, a provocation, an attempt at irrational triggering.
Example:
>>16207335
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:46:53 UTC No. 16209761
>>16209743
As examples of science denial, have a look below, where clear, genuine attempts were made at clarifying wronged opinions about certain topics of research, met with hostile accusations of inauthenticity, character attacks, and a constant denial of the written facts without any shown evidence for it, even when specifically requested, multiple times.
Fundamentalists.
>>16197414
>>16195595
>>16199090
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:49:29 UTC No. 16209763
>>16209662
>One does not need a whole separate thread to clearly see that ''science'' and ''philosophy'' can not be defined as monoliths.
YOU don't. This is not your board.
Get off the thread if it so bothers you.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:50:30 UTC No. 16209765
>>16209634
>skepticism
see this as well:
>>16209743
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:51:21 UTC No. 16209770
The whole science vs philosophy thing is, perhaps, the single most damaging stance within the scientific community
It is inherently ironic, and once you figure this out, the anti-philosophical types look preposterously retarded.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:51:55 UTC No. 16209771
>>16209749
Are you saying he isn't allowed to think Einstein is stupid? So what if he does? So what he doesn't?
It's healthy for long standing ideas to have their foundations shaken once in a while. It doesn't matter if that comes in the form of trolling or skepticism. Every aspect of it should be tested it to ensure it still has integrity.
It sounds like you're just complaining that people think differently than what you would like. People are going to say things you think are wrong, just deal with it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:57:41 UTC No. 16209777
Yeah. Look.
Science cannot be done without logic, and it necessarily employs assumptions about measurement, categories, models, language, and theories. It must also have some metric for determining what counts as good science and what does not. These are all philosophical questions. Even when science it done without an overt focus on philosophical problems, scientists cannot escape taking philosophical positions.
Not only does science -have- a (natural) philosophy, the field of theoretical(hypothetical) physics is itself indistinguishable from philosophical thinking.
Trying to separate philosophy from science is impossible. The same way you can’t separate art from science.
You eventually realize that science nerds are just as blind to irony and nuance as religious people are.
If you disagree with any of this, you are fucking *wrong*.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:59:37 UTC No. 16209779
Is thinking philosophical, or is only thinking philosophically philosophical?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:17:24 UTC No. 16209806
>>16209743
Your definition of science denial is Orwellian.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:38:33 UTC No. 16209825
Philosophy is just celebrity worship. Worshipping Plato or Kant or any other historical old white man is no different from worshipping Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate today.
In science you have textbooks presenting contents independently of who discovered them. You can study quantum mechanics without needing to read original texts by Schrödinger, and in fact you don't even need to know his name when applying the equation he discovered. A textbook about philosophy on the other hand will always be a dry list of "Plato said this ... Nietzsche said that ..." Philosophy has produced no objective insights, philosophy is merely a collection of opinions from ancient meme influencers.
Studying philosophy is not just a waste of time, it's also the epitome of cuckoldism. There is no moral difference between "I let this other guy fill my wife's pussy with his cum instead of my own cum" and "I let this other guy fill my mind with his ideas instead of my own ideas". If you take philosophy and philosophers seriously you're just too immature to think for yourself.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:39:35 UTC No. 16209828
I hate rationalists so fucking much. Both theist and atheist.
It's due to assholes like Plato and Descartes that rationalists plague the world today.
For your information, your senses never ever lie to you. That's not even possible for a perception to lie in the first place, contrary to what pieces of shit rationalists keep saying.
When you make a mistake stemming from a perception, the perception is never faulty, it's your interpretation which sucks.
And then those rationalist assholes spend 2500 FUCKING YEARS saying rationality is the sure way to truth. AND GUESS WHAT MOTHERFUCKER< NONE OF THOSE RATIONALIST FOUND ANY TRUTH WITH THEIR MIGHTY RATIONALITY. FUCK
2500 FUCKING YEARS THEY"VE BEEN AT IT. FUCK YOU
the truth is that rationality is a meme by rationalists. Rationality is just imagination and then the rationalists are in a dead end, because since FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PLATO , they try to distinguish between ''''''''retarded imaginary takes'''' and ''''''''totally truth stemming from LE MIND LOL"".
"JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE"" MY ASS. FUCK YOU PLATO. PRAISE DIOGEN.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:59:33 UTC No. 16209852
>>16209825
>applying the equation he discovered
Philosophy presents applicable and verifiable/falsifiable equations all the time. For example: ''the road to hell = paved with good intentions''. That's verifiably true: saving the planet by chopping down trees and burning wood as biofuel, becoming more beautiful by butchering one's face with plastic surgery, becoming more connected by staying in one's room to browse social media and so on.
Example 2:
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:08:42 UTC No. 16209867
>>16209828
Bait.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:11:13 UTC No. 16209872
>>16209544
>- Science is thinking and doing "is nature like so, or is it not? Let's go see and verify".
>- Philosophy is "what does it mean?"
Already there you're wrong. I'm not even going to explain why.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 16:59:47 UTC No. 16210030
>>16209777
/endthread
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 17:58:58 UTC No. 16210105
Science: how?
Philosophy: why?
that's it
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 18:01:42 UTC No. 16210107
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 18:05:00 UTC No. 16210112
>thread asking people to distinguish two distinguishable realms of discovery, one of them which does not belong in /sci/
>devolves into a type of discussion that does not belong in /sci/
sight, or should I say /sci/
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 18:45:18 UTC No. 16210188
>>16210105
Water and oil.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:04:15 UTC No. 16210211
>>16209544
>On the other hand, Philosophy delves deeper into the implications and significance of those findings. It is a rational discipline that uses logic, critical thinking, and conceptual analysis to explore fundamental questions about reality, knowledge, ethics, and human experience. It aims to clarify concepts, expose assumptions, and examine the foundations of our beliefs.
This is already contained in science. Science is rationalism + empiricism. No philosophy needed. Philosotards add nothing of value and never answered any relevant question.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:21:21 UTC No. 16210233
>>16210211
Retard, how do you know if you're rational without philosophy?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:22:45 UTC No. 16210235
>>16210233
It's called common sense. It comes naturally with a high IQ.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:25:36 UTC No. 16210241
>>16210235
All human experience is subjective your common sense is worth nothing because it's tied directly to your environment. You might a well call it larping because that's what it is.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:29:05 UTC No. 16210247
>>16210241
>All human experience is subjective
How does philosophy overcome this issue? Oh wait, it doesn't. Philosophy is worthless.
>your common sense is worth nothing
Logic and math are universal.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:29:29 UTC No. 16210248
>>16210235
Lies. Garbage in garbage out regardless of IQ. Politicians for example.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:32:19 UTC No. 16210253
>>16210188
ebony and ivory
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:32:28 UTC No. 16210254
>>16210247
>How does philosophy overcome this issue?
Consensus. For all the disagreement there's still the beaten path.
>Logic and math are universal.
Your perception isn't. Regardless of where you start without a broad picture you'll just paint yourself into a corner.
>be born into tribe of baby eating cannibals
>after long deliberation of mental gymnastics eating babies is le moral good because my tribe does it and we are good people
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:34:39 UTC No. 16210258
>>16210247
>Philosophy is worthless
it's entertaining to some, that's value
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:37:27 UTC No. 16210265
>>16210254
>Consensus.
Your ability to model and predict the shadows on the wall in Plato's Cave is commendable. Now get me out of this cave you blind man.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:41:18 UTC No. 16210269
>>16210265
As long as there's push and pull in dialogue we'll figure it out, Shirley. It's either that or wait for man in the sky people to crack through by praying really hard about it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:42:46 UTC No. 16210272
>>16210248
Politicians are low IQ. The elites only allow the dumbest people to become politicians. It's supposed to be a humiliation ritual for the voters.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:45:15 UTC No. 16210276
>>16210254
Your lack of self-awarenees is hilarious. You appeal to consensus as a solution to philosophical questions and then a few lines later use the negative example of a cannibalistic society employing consensus to conclude that cannibalism is morally okay.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:47:54 UTC No. 16210281
>>16210276
Are you retarded? Step outside of the cannibal tribe to a broader group of people and see if their contribution changes the equation.. Didn't you start this off with muh iq? Use it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:12:01 UTC No. 16210455
>>16209777
This. You absolutely cannot separate the two.
🗑️ Barkon. at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:14:20 UTC No. 16210459
>>16210455
Who's fartin?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:23:26 UTC No. 16210480
>>16210459
Certainly not me!
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:07:17 UTC No. 16210573
>>16210211
>This is already contained in science.
No, they are not the same. Philosophy deals with that which cannot be shown to be true or false. It's the untestable.
Once you can test philosophy, it becomes science
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:53:02 UTC No. 16210639
>>16210211
you're a retarded fuck and it shows.
go back to do your summer course homework.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 05:21:28 UTC No. 16211105
>>16210639
>projecting this hard
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant you Americans are when it comes to the history of science.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:42:25 UTC No. 16211180
>>16210253
Mathematics and reality
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:48:06 UTC No. 16211440
>Even when science it done without an overt focus on philosophical problems, scientists cannot escape taking philosophical positions.
Fucking this
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:42:41 UTC No. 16212506
>>16210258
Where can I find a handsome but nerdy boyfriend like this
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:55:58 UTC No. 16212523
>>16212506
you're talking to one, but I'm taken, sorry.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:22:38 UTC No. 16212655
>>16212523
Damn
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 05:36:52 UTC No. 16213117
>>16212506
Sorry, I only date cis women.